Laserfiche WebLink
• _3_ <br />e. N[aintenance of the bank along the project site. <br />OUR COMMENTS <br />We do not understand what a horizontal flow of water is in <br />relation to this stretch of river. This is a totally <br />meaningless statement. (a. of above) <br />Integrity of the riverbank is substantial? Look at the <br />photos showing existing slope, branches over edge, slumping <br />on the Riverbank reference (Visual 3 4)). The northshore <br />line has been eroding northward every year, accelerated when <br />there is a high flow period. If the barrier between the <br />river and the pit is only 100 feet it will be just a matter <br />of a number of years (unpredictable weather) until it fails <br />so the riverbank consistency remains very fragile. <br />In item c. above, United wants to provide the minimum berm <br />necessary to get the permit approval, not what is really <br />needed for future security. Later they say they do not <br />Item a above, What maintenance do they expect to happen once <br />they have used the pit up and no one maintains any of it???? <br />We failed to see any replies to questions from Colorado <br />Mined Land Office to United relative to: <br />Will asphalt/concrete batch plant used in conjunction with <br />with this operation - will these facilities be situated in <br />the floodplain? (It is our understanding that neither a <br />aspha.Lt or concrete batch plant are permitted on the <br />floodplain, thus United in their July 16, 1990 reply denies <br />there is a floodplain in the area of their gravel pit. U.S. <br />Army Corps of Engineers says the floodplain extends to C'~. <br />United makes no reply to the question raised by CMLR about <br />what measures to reduce erosion to the shore from wave <br />action once the pit is done and a lake is there? <br />United Companies wants to obtain the, gravel pit without <br />doing absolutely any more than the minimum required. They <br />have used a variety of statements to give the appearance <br />they are concerned and cooperative. <br />Anyone can walk the rivershore bank adjacent to the proposed <br />pit ar~d see real hazards and the bank is not substantial. <br />Mesa County Engineer Gould only admits one 10 foot long <br />slump and recommends rip-rap, but we could not see any that <br />short in length. We saw a big cutback about 18-20 feet into <br />the bank from the rivershore, additional slumping (some over <br />2 feet. drop) surface cracks as far back in the land behind <br />the riverbank as 20-25 feet and others. See additional <br />photos in Visual page 4. <br />While talking about riverbank instability/stability we would <br />